* Ulf Hansson [off-list ref] [160204 22:55]:

On 5 February 2016 at 02:08, Tony Lindgren [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

* Ulf Hansson [off-list ref] [160204 14:35]:

quoted

On 4 February 2016 at 23:09, Alan Stern [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Ulf Hansson wrote:

quoted

I am really not questioning the autosuspend feature at all, it's a
really great feature!

Now, I question the minor benefit we actually gain from having the
runtime PM core to update the mark in rpm_resume().

As Tony pointed out, it prevents some devices from going to sleep right
away.

Because their drivers don't care to update the last busy mark!?

Nope. Without that devices may never resume at all so the drivers
can't do anything about it.

I don't get it. Why not? Because of another abuse of the runtime PM API?

I think you should be able to test this case in your test driver by
calling pm_runtime_resume() for your test driver after your
test drive has autosuspended. Probably you need some delayed_work to
do this in your test driver unless you have some test bus to go with it.

Or we should probably continue to focus on fixing the regression. :-)

Naturally we should fix up things yeah :) Having a test driver
that works on any architecture sure makes things easier to verify.

Regards,

Tony